Atom N270 vs Celeron U3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Atom
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)DiamondVille (2008−2009)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)2 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$44

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads22
Base clock speed1.06 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed0.07 GHz0.1 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0FSB
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/s533.33 MT/s
Multiplier812
L1 cache128 KB56 KB
L2 cache512 KB512 KB
L3 cache2 MB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size81 mm225.9638 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
Number of transistors382 Million47 Million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.9V-1.1625V

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketBGA1288PBGA437
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt2.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N270. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States+-
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N270. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800no data
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processors-
Clear Video+-
Graphics max frequency500 MHz-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3400 and Atom N270 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3400 and Atom N270.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron U3400 516
+279%
Atom N270 136

Pros & cons summary


Recency 24 May 2010 2 April 2008
Physical cores 2 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 2 Watt

Celeron U3400 has an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Atom N270, on the other hand, has 800% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron U3400 and Atom N270. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3400 and Atom N270, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron U3400
Celeron U3400
Intel Atom N270
Atom N270

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 30 votes

Rate Celeron U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 225 votes

Rate Atom N270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3400 or Atom N270, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.